Share this:

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 21st, 2012 at 10:00 am and is filed under International Politics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Brad, no you don’t. You only have to observer their actual and stated strategies. Hamas continues to commit a series of war crimes by firing rockets essentially at random at a civilian population. That is a war crime that is apparently sanctioned by a great many of the leftist commentariat. In contrast the Israeli’s are specifically targeting Hamas operatives who are responsible for these crimes.

It is furthermore also a war crime to use civilians as a shield to prevent legitimate actions in a conflict. Hamas quite deliberately uses civilians as cover, indeed quite specifically places children in danger by using places next to schools and playgrounds (and UN facilities) to launch rockets. They then use the resulting Israeli reaction to generate propaganda. Not content with the death and destruction that they quite deliberately bring down on civilians, they then fake injuries to generate additional coverage by gullible western news media who typically need little encouragement to run this form of street theatre as news.

I’m waiting for Luc Hansen to announce here on Kiwiblog that he’s one of the volunteer civilian who’s keen to go to Gaza to act as a sympathetic human shield to protect the Hamas over there.

You’ll be waiting a long time, FF… propagandist Luc is high on promoting the Hamas terrorists but very short on logic, equally short on any semblance of balance and most of all: totally lacking in veracity.

It’s a good cartoon, making a fair point. But note to cartoonist … Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shiite militia, not a Gazan Palestinian group. And Hezbollah operates more like a regular army than Hamas does, with less use of civilian human shields etc etc.

You are working on the basis that this is a state-to-state conflict. It is not. There is only one state west of the Jordan. The residents of Gaza are therefore terrorists in the same way Mandela was a terrorist.

Brad, no you don’t. You only have to observer their actual and stated strategies. Hamas continues to commit a series of war crimes by firing rockets essentially at random at a civilian population.

A person might summarise events as such and decide that it’s as simple as there’s Hamas on one side and Israel on the other.

But that overlooks a lot of detail. Hamas does not pronounce this claimed strategy. Hamas for instance was actively restricting rocket attacks on Israel but has not the political power to stop all armed and angry Palestinians from attacking. When Israel killed Jabari they, and probably knowing they would, killed the person most able to restrict the attacks.

Even if you believe that the core reason for Israels increased assaults was self defence you ought recognize they knew they were escalating violence.

Trying to say it’s a simple case of Hamas did it first is a nonsense. The attack and counter-attacks between these groups go back a long way and picking any point as a start from which someone struck first is an arbitrary choice.

And making that choice is just picking sides. You could pick the angry Gazan who was forced from their home into being a stateless refugee under blockade that starves them as the originally wronged party if you liked, with quite proper casus belli against an enemy that keeps them imprisoned and actively destroys efforts to improve their lot.

Or you could pick the Israelis as much embattled protectors of a long oppressed heritage forced by necessity to take land for their security in a world proven to have no other sanctuary for them.

Pick your poison, but not if you care about trying to stop any of it. Picking sides won’t help you do that.

Trying to say it’s a simple case of Hamas did it first is a nonsense. The attack and counter-attacks between these groups go back a long way and picking any point as a start from which someone struck first is an arbitrary choice.

No, it’s not. People only make that claim because it’s so self-evidently true that Hamas is able to stop this conflict tomorrow. Israel does not have that ability.

The people of Gaza are not imprisoned. Indeed the opposite – Israel gave up their claims to the territory unilaterally. To show their grattitude, the locals elected a goverment dedicated to the destruction of the nation that made that gesture. They are at war with Israel by their choice, and the consequences are their choice.

Fentex – can’t agree with you at all sorry. This was started by the people in Gaza. They have been firing rockets at Israel for months I understand. This may come as a surprise to many. But the media has not covered the story at all.

The media is now covering the story because Israel is firing back.

I think moral equivalence is quite wrong. If Gaza stopped firing rockets at Israel then peace would break out. If Israel stopped firing rockets at Gaza then the war would continue. It’s as simple as that really. One side, Israel, wants peace. The other side, Gaza and its weapons supplier which I understand to be Iran, does not.

The attack and counter-attacks between these groups go back a long way and picking any point as a start from which someone struck first is an arbitrary choice.

Not quite so fast…

First culprit: The state of Israel

The inciting cause of the latest confrontation between Israel and Hamas has little to do with the firing of rockets, whether by Hamas or the other Palestinian factions.

The conflict predates the rockets – and even the creation of Hamas – by decades. It is the legacy of Israel’s dispossession of Palestinians in 1948, forcing many of them from their homes in what is now Israel into the tiny Gaza Strip. That original injustice has been compounded by the occupation Israel has not only failed to end but has actually intensified in recent years with its relentless siege of the small strip of territory.

Israel has been progressively choking the life out of Gaza, destroying its economy, periodically wrecking its infrastructure, denying its inhabitants freedom of movement and leaving its population immiserated.

One only needs to look at the restrictions on Gazans’ access to their own sea. Here we are not considering their right to use their own coast to leave and enter their territory, simply their right to use their own waters to feed themselves. According to one provision of the Oslo accords, Gaza was given fishing rights up to 20 miles off its shore. Israel has slowly whittled that down to just three miles, with Israeli navy vessels firing on fishing boats even inside that paltry limit.

Palestinians in Gaza are entitled to struggle for their right to live and prosper. That struggle is a form of self-defence – not aggression – against occupation, oppression, colonialism and imperialism.

and

It is not, as Israel’s supporters allege, that Hamas is hiding among Palestinian civilians; rather, Israel has forced Palestinian civilians to live in a tiny strip of land that Israel turned into a war zone.

Dumb cartoon. Am surprised a cartoonist would think that killing kids was funny.

The cartoon points out that it is in fact very clear who is morally wrong in this conflict. It should not be a suprise that you’d rather smear the cartoonist as evil rather than admitting the evil you’re defending.

Which of course means you’re only helping make the point the cartoon is making.

The conflict predates the rockets – and even the creation of Hamas – by decades. It is the legacy of Israel’s dispossession of Palestinians in 1948, forcing many of them from their homes in what is now Israel into the tiny Gaza Strip.

Clearly the invasion of Israel by half a dozen armies the day after it’s founding is just a footnote in your history book.

And again I repeat, you can’t blame this on the “cycle of violence”. Israel broke that cycle when they pulled out of Gaza, unilaterally and unconditionally.

Fentex – can’t agree with you at all sorry. This was started by the people in Gaza. They have been firing rockets at Israel for months I understand. This may come as a surprise to many. But the media has not covered the story at all.

No Scott, the western media is reporting according to Israel’s songbook. The simple fact is that Israel is and has always been the aggressor in the Meddle East, with the sole, albeit debatable, exception of 1972, and even though that war was in response to Israel’s occupation of the Sinai. Get the connection? Occupation?

Or do you consider belligerent, illegal occupation is not something one should respond to?

“The Arab League members Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq refused to accept the UN partition plan and proclaimed the right of self-determination for the Arabs across the whole of Palestine. The Arab states marched their forces into what had, until the previous day, been the British Mandate for Palestine.”

Israel has been fighting for survival against agressive neighbours since its UN mandated inception.

Clearly the invasion of Israel by half a dozen armies the day after it’s founding is just a footnote in your history book.

More myth. The Arab “armies”, mainly Brotherhood militia except for Jordan and Iraq, entered areas designated as Palestinian to protect them from the ethnic cleansing that had already commenced in 1947.

Again, the immigrant European Jews were the aggressors.

However, this is all irrelevant to today’s situation. Palestinians largely accept that Palestine has gone for the forseeable future and want to live normal lives as free people, not one of subjugation to a brutal coloniser.

The simple fact is that Israel is and has always been the aggressor in the Meddle East, with the sole, albeit debatable, exception of 1972, and even though that war was in response to Israel’s occupation of the Sinai.

I’m not sure which is more staggering, your utter blindness at the beligerance shown towards Israel over the years, or the fact that you, inspite of that blindness, begrudginly admit that there was one single case where Israel was “maybe” in the right.

More myth. The Arab “armies”, mainly Brotherhood militia except for Jordan and Iraq, entered areas designated as Palestinian to protect them from the ethnic cleansing that had already commenced in 1947.

Good God, you are far gone.

Again, the immigrant European Jews were the aggressors.

Despite being vastly outnumbered and with inadequate equipment, fighting on their own land against people from far away, you still call them aggressors.

However, this is all irrelevant to today’s situation. Palestinians largely accept that Palestine has gone for the forseeable future and want to live normal lives as free people, not one of subjugation to a brutal coloniser.

I never thought I’d see someone who was as utterly divorced from reality as you are. That’s incredible – absolutly incredible.

One of Israel’s tremendous propaganda victories is that it has been accepted as a victim of the Palestinians, both in the view of the Israeli public and that of Western leaders who hasten to speak of Israel’s right to defend itself. The propaganda is so effective that only the Palestinian rockets at the south of Israel, and now at Tel Aviv, are counted in the round of hostilities. The rockets, or damage to the holiest of holies – a military jeep – are always seen as a starting point…

…On November 8, two days before the attack on the holiest of holies – soldiers in a military jeep – they could have read about IDF soldiers killing 13-year old Ahmad Abu Daqqa, who was playing soccer with his friends in the village of Abassan, east of Khan Yunis. The soldiers were 1.5 kilometers from the kids, inside the Gaza Strip area, busy with “exposing” (a whitewashed word for destroying ) agricultural land. So why shouldn’t the count of aggression start with a child? On November 10, after the attack on the jeep, the IDF killed another four civilians, aged 16 to 19.

Luc, just for the record:
1. Do you deny the holocaust killed 6m+ Jews?
2. Do you deny that the Jews who move moved to Israel were moving back to a land their ancestors lived in?
3. Do you deny that ancient Israel existed?

Lance: actually yes. I like to assume that people have a valid view at some level. It’s my observation that people who disagree actually agree on much. For example, in this instance, we all agree that civilian deaths are wrong.

But you do have a point, because Luc’s side are telling us that civilian deaths are wrong, but targeting civilians is ok if you’re desperate.

Luc, if I lived next to you, on land to which I held title / had legal status / had all rights etc and you started to fire rockets over the fence at me that killed and hurt my people, I’d more than likely come over the fence into your place / hunt you down and, shall we say, I’d remove any prospect of an action replay!

The fact that the Israelis have not marched into Gaza and taken out the Hamas terrorists once and for all, speaks volumes for the Israelis. I doubt I’d be so patient – especially whilst the terrorists were continuing with their rain of rockets.

But one day, the Israelis may just run out of patience and guess what? The Hamas terrorists will be toast. And that day may not be too far away – only an idiot will say they can’t see it coming….

1. Do you deny the holocaust killed 6m+ Jews?
2. Do you deny that the Jews who move moved to Israel were moving back to a land their ancestors lived in?
3. Do you deny that ancient Israel existed?

Let me try:

1. Not relevant, but I accept it. So what? Over 70 million others died, mostly Christians.

2. Probably. Your question shows they left the land. This does not give right of return hundreds of years later.

3. No. Many other peoples lived in that area too. The Jews can claim no special rights. What other religion can claim land based on their own teachings and historical connections? We all came from somewhere.

I am not defending Hamas. I have previously commented that the rocket attacks warrant a massive response to protect Israel. But Israel should never have been put there in the first place.

You refuse to acknowledge that Israel is blockading Gaza for the heinous sin of electing a government it didn’t like, therefore conducting collective punishment, a war crime, and Palestinians, according to you, have no rights of retaliation, even though your position is contrary to international law.

And like most, you lose sight of the fact that the retaliatory from Gaza rockets are all about the blockade, a crime inflicted on a civilian population, and the blockade was inflicted for political, not military purposes.

Furthermore, under international law, Israel is in clear breach of its responsibilities as an occupying power.

You need to readjust your perspective if you want to go on about retaliation as a cause.

Now I’m off to a much more pleasant task of tending to my four year old who, thankfully, is well out of the reach of Israel’s goons…oh, wait, what’s that black helicopter doing buzzing around my house?

Excerpts from a meeting between Hillary Clinton and Benjamin Netanyahu In Jerusalem on Tuesday:

Hillary Clinton:
“President Obama asked me to come to Israel with a very clear message. American’s commitment to Israel’s security is rock solid and unwavering. That is why we believe it is essential to de-escalate the situation in Gaza,” she said. “The goal must be a durable outcome that promotes regional stability and advances the security and legitimate aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

Benjamin Netanyahu:
“Obviously, no country can tolerate a wanton attack on its civilians,” said Netanyahu as he stood beside Clinton. “Now, if there is a possibility of achieving a long-term solution to this problem through diplomatic means, we prefer that. But if not, I’m sure you understand that Israel will have to take whatever actions necessary to defend its people.”

From CNN:

According to the Gaza Ministry of Health, 27 people were killed Tuesday, including children, and 137 Palestinians have been killed since the latest hostilities erupted. More than 1,100 people were injured.

It’s not clear how many of the victims were militants

The death toll in Israel moved from three to four early Tuesday when an 18-year-old soldier was killed in a rocket attack in the town of Eshkol, officials said. It climbed from four to five, according to the hospital, when a 30-year-old Bedouin was killed.

Post Script:

Israel said it was holding off on a ground offensive into Gaza to give diplomatic efforts time. Those efforts include talks with Clinton and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

KevinH:
A ground offensive into Gaza has the potential to trigger an open ended conflict between Israel and Eygpt. Hillary Clinton will have her work cut out for her in convincing Eygpt to remain neutral during this latest escalation in hostilities between Israel and Palestine.
Israel has the military edge and international support in this conflict whereas Palestine is waging another tit for tat sticks and stones response to Israel’s intransigence over Gaza and the occupied territories of the West Bank and Golan Heights.
There is no short term solution apart from outright war with hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties in Gaza, an unacceptable result to the global community. Neither is the ongoing missle attacks from Gaza on Israel which will have to desist immediately before both parties can begin to consider any sort of truce.

Hamas need to be supplied with high tech weaponry, then Israeli civilian casualties can be minimised as only surgical strikes on valid targets inside Israel (such as Netanyahu’s residence) need take place.

What those who support Israel in this have to answer is, why do they support a country that kills innocent people for election purposes? None of them have even tried to answer that.

Do they deny it happens? If so, go ahead and try. Military assaults happen around election time in Israel dating back to 1959. Also the rockets have been firing constantly since Cast Lead also before the elections four years ago, around 7-800 per year 2010, 2011, 2012. So given these facts, the reality is, Israel is definitely killing babies purely and specifically for election purposes, and some people support that.

One has to question whether these people would tolerate any other country than Israel, doing this. I wonder why they hallucinate Israel is a special case?

All they ever do is bray about poor widdle Israel with 7-800 rockets per year, which hardly ever kill anyone, around 12 Israeli deaths in the last decade before this latest round started, vs the 1440 other innocent civilian humans who died just in Cast Lead only 4 years ago.

If you want to argue about whether or not it goes back to 1959, I’m personally not interested. To me it’s clear evidence about this with the upcoming January elections and the big coincidental Cast Lead also before the January elections just 4 years ago, with nothing in between of any significance. That seals the case for me.

In a CIVIL war it is very hard to identify the CIVILians on the non-government side, as anyone who follwed the IRA, Kmerh Rouge or Tamil Tiger “wars” will attest. However, this is not a civil war, this is a state to state engagement, with as yet no ultimatum or war declaration having been issues, making it more a gueriller action on the part of Hammas and retaliation of the part of the Government of Israel. As such, it is hard to understand how and under what mandate the UN or any other observer cold comment on whether or not the “rules” of war are being observed.

Hamas don’t need high tech weaponry. They murder their own people quite freely with low tech pistols and rifles,and the Gaza mob enjoys it. These animals need taking out ,and failing that ,what the Israelis are doing and keeping their barbarism out of Israel. A vote for Hamas is a vote for thuggery and oppression.

Kea- “Give reasons why they alone should be given a country based on religion? NO religious texts dont count as a reason or as evidence. They are not gods chosen and there is no god.”

I think you have stumbled on the reason right there why Israel is so vilified by so many. The reason is spiritual. The conflict for example between the Israelis and the Arabs goes back to Isaac and Ishmael. The occupation of the land of Israel by the Jews goes back to Moses. So there is a lot of religious history there.

As to your base assertion, I do have to contradict you. There is a God and I know there is a God. How do I know? I talked to him this morning.

In a CIVIL war it is very hard to identify the CIVILians on the non-government side

No it’s not. If it’s a woman, a young child, an old person, basically everyone except young men, it’s likely to be a civilian, plus you can always get the terrorist/civilian numbers after the dust settles. Personally I don’t even bother looking at them till the dust does settle, only then can you get both sides propaganda out of the way, before that its impossible and who cares anyway, the numbers are germane only to the proportionality aspect of this and those are the relative numbers only: how many civilian Israelis and how many civilian Palestinians? What’s the ratio at the mo? That’s the only relevant statistic in the numbers.

A vote for Israel is a vote for thuggery and oppression as well, apparently. When you do read those numbers.

What about this don’t some people get: Israel is the big partner in this. Israel is the one who has all the power, all the options, all the tactics to chose from, all the timing, all the everything. So Israel is the one and the only one, who sets the agenda. The Palestinians react to whatever Israel decides to do. In other words, this doesn’t have to be this way, if Israel wants to change, she can. And if she changes, the Palestinians change. What about that, don’t some people get?

How can any possible Arab coalition wipe out a country that has 350+ nuclear weapons not to mention chemical and biologicals too? How the fuck can that ever happen? Israel is bullet-proof. What about that is hard to understand?

Hate to disagree with you Reid old chap, but I think you are only partly right. It would indeed be hard for the Arabs and the Muslims to destroy Israel.
But not impossible. If Iran gains a nuclear weapon or 2 or 3 then they could conceivably attack Israel and try and destroy the entire nation with nuclear weapons. Their Pres wants to do it.

Secondly I would see a distinction between military reality and the reality of the heart. The surrounding nations want to destroy Israel. For many of them destroying the nation of Israel and all of its people is a deep desire of their heart. Sure they may not be able to implement genocide yet? But in their hearts they are murderous.

But not impossible. If Iran gains a nuclear weapon or 2 or 3 then they could conceivably attack Israel and try and destroy the entire nation with nuclear weapons. Their Pres wants to do it.

Meanwhile here on Planet Earth the Iranians know that if they do that their entire country of 170 million souls is going to perish in nuclear fire, which will also kill many more millions in their region with the fallout. They knows that’s what will definitely no doubt about it happen, if they did that.

For what? Tel Aviv is a smoking crater? Haifa as well?

So let’s get real. They’re not going to do that, even if they had them.

Secondly I would see a distinction between military reality and the reality of the heart. The surrounding nations want to destroy Israel. For many of them destroying the nation of Israel and all of its people is a deep desire of their heart. Sure they may not be able to implement genocide yet? But in their hearts they are murderous.

Yes but so what. Who cares? Apart from the very human principle that if any of us had been born as an average Palestinian and our whole family was Palestinian and we’d lived exactly the lives those people have, in fact, lived, since they were born, well who knows what we’d be like? Apart from that principle, so what is someone’s heart is murderous. I don’t care what people think, I care about what they do. And if they can’t do anything militarily, which they can’t, they’re not a particular threat. Militarily, the rockets constitute minor harassment. Sure the owner of the house doesn’t think it’s particularly minor but that’s what it amounts to. Like I said above, around 12 Israeli fatalities from rockets over the last decade. That’s not many.

Whereas this, this election stunt, this is not what anyone in the world, would call minor. By their actions ye shall know them and on this evidence I think you’d find as much murder in the hearts of the Israeli leadership, as you’ll find it in the hearts of Hamas. This is not the Israeli people’s fault, it’s their leadership that is doing this, not them, but their leadership are cold blooded murderers of women and children. What else could you possibly call it.

Meanwhile here on Planet Earth the Iranians know that if they do that their entire country of 170 million souls is going to perish in nuclear fire, which will also kill many more millions in their region with the fallout. They knows that’s what will definitely no doubt about it happen, if they did that.

Honestly, it’s really not that hard to look at the Islamic radicals in power and ask yourself, “are these really rational people”.

Can’t agree with you Reid my dear chap. I would think it is quite possible that Iran might think of the 1st strike wipe out the nation of Israel before they can retaliate kind of action. The current Pres of Iran doesn’t seem like a particularly rational man.
He hates the Jews and he hates Israel and wants to see Israel wiped out. He says so often, so I think we have to give him the courtesy of believing him. So if the military balance changes Israel could well be stuffed.

And I can’t agree with your characterisation of the Israeli leadership. They have no reason for wiping out the nations around them. They probably hate missiles being fired at them. Anybody would. But the idea they have a deep religious hatred is a lot harder to credit. They didn’t start firing on Gaza. They pulled out of Gaza years ago so that they would not offer any excuse or provocation. But Gaza started firing on them.

So I just can’t agree with you Reid. I think your position on Israel is seriously mistaken, I am sorry to say.

You saw the cartoon right? Civilians are being killed because the terrorist are hiding behind them, not because civilians are being targeted.

Scubone if they used snipers I wouldn’t mind, but a 125 mm artillery shell or a 250 lb bomb seems to be their preferred weapon of choice. Haven’t you noticed that?

Honestly, it’s really not that hard to look at the Islamic radicals in power and ask yourself, “are these really rational people”.

Be more specific scrubone. Are you saying these people are irrational maniacs? If so you’re living in some fantasy land, to hallucinate that any country’s leadership makes decisions like that, let alone a sophisticated large complex country like Iran. That just doesn’t happen, except in the loony-tune world of your average fanatical zionist, who often say things like that not because they themselves are stupid enough to believe them but because they know there are millions upon millions of fantastically useful idiots who will.

Can’t agree with you Reid my dear chap. I would think it is quite possible that Iran might think of the 1st strike wipe out the nation of Israel before they can retaliate kind of action.

And I can’t agree with your characterisation of the Israeli leadership. They have no reason for wiping out the nations around them.

Scott they’re not trying to wipe them out. The Israeli leadership are killing a few thousand human beings so the Israeli electorate will re-elect them. That’s what they do, all the time. And you approve of it.

THIS IS NOT REPEAT NOT REPEAT NOT REPEAT NOT A SECURITY OPERATION.

How can you possibly overlook the timing and the fact they have had no similar operations SINCE THE LAST ELECTION.

So don’t bother arguing security. It’s not about that, and you should know that.

It’s your cognitive dissonance. You’re trying to invent reasons in your head to justify your support because you can’t argue with the simple logic.

it’s so self-evidently true that Hamas is able to stop this conflict tomorrow

I don’t agree. Hamas supplanted the PLO in many Palestinaians affections because they primarily were less corrupt and actively worked to better Palestinians circumstances by pragmatic work in the community. They also talked tough and made the case for carrying the Palestinian cause for statehood and resistance to Israel and won sufficient support to win elections.

However winning an election does not magically make someone able to change the politics and circumstances that shape the environment in which they were elected.

If Hamas suddenly used all it’s resources to protect Israel it would find it itself in armed conflict with other factions of Palestinians and promptly lose all credibility when it is seen to fight it’s own citizens.

There is a practical limit to Hamas authority.

They have been firing rockets at Israel for months I understand.

Years actually. There’s always someone poking at Israel from Gaza or the Lebanon. That Israel has chosen now to react forcefully rather than say two months ago is a political calculation by Israels government and likely related to their approaching elections.

If Gaza stopped firing rockets at Israel then peace would break out.

Well sure, if everyone in a conflict demures to one side of course peaces breaks out, in that sides favour.

I mean if its not about the elections why is it called Operation Pillar of Cloud specifically to remind the electorate and compare the leadership to what God did for them in the wilderness. How’s that for arrogance, to do that, in front of the whole world? Comparing the murder of innocents with what God did for the Israelites, shows more than extraordinary arrogance, it shows evil.

scrub one, I think you are confusing me with Reid, I have not advanced any thesis about the Israeli elections.

Yes that is me scrubone. Scott possibly wishes he spotted it first, it’s so obvious.

One reason people find it difficult to think straight about Israel is because the propaganda they put forth capitalises on their Holy status. The hallucination in the West, that Israel is God’s people. Therefore does no wrong.

Understanding both history and the Bible clarifies the relevant principles of Israel today but many people have only one and many have neither of these.

The critical distinction to make in breaking through this if one is interested is to make in one’s mind a clear and present distinction between the people of a country and its leadership. This isolates the bad guys and it makes sense, those are who are responsible are these people.

Then consider the actions of said leadership over history in clear light of day and consider whether, over time, decades, they have done the right or the wrong thing in progressing the best interests of their citizens.

To illustrate the extreme spectrum of this western confusion over Israel, consider that there is strong support from many US right-wing Christian nutters groups precisely for the destruction of Israel so as to hasten the rapture and the Second Coming.

People who support the Israeli leadership as they, once again, destroy any chance at stability for their own people for the foreseeable future, are to a lessor degree, on the same spectrum as those right wing Christians.

Firstly, you don’t actually have any evidence that it is the case. No documentation, no inside information. Your assertion is based purely on the timing of this round of violence.

The attack on Jabari had bipartisan approval at the Knesset. Ehud Barak from the Indenpendence Party (ex Labour) and Netanyahu from Likud. So it was unlikely to score votes one over the other. The talk that he was a possible peacebroker is also speculation. One thing that is more clear is that he indoctrinated youth to do his dirty work for him. Usually the response operations target the actual youths, this one aimed at the mastermind.

Of course Protecting Civilians will be a popular with the electorate. Todays Polls show that 90% of Israelis support the operation, however only 1 in four support a ground invasion.

If anything, military operation is risky to an election. Any operation which is seen to put Israeli lives at unnecessary risk will be harmful to politicians. Just look at Ehud Olmert – his popularity went through the floor after it was said that the Lebanon action in 2006 put soldiers in undue risk from Hezbollah terrorists.

Right now Barak and Netanyahu are in intense discussions over terms of ceasefire. This could also affect the polling, depending on the outcome. It is likely that Hamas will be rewarded financially for their terror campaign, via international aid or other loosening of measures against them to prevent terror.

Any suggestion that killing Jabari actually was not the right thing will be heavily dissected in Israel (with the free press), and there is no guarantee that it provides popular support to politicians.

I expect that you will selectively ignore, disregard or argue these points, with innuendo. I will have limited time to respond, but I believe the claim is suitably refuted and this comment should be a reference for claims in the future.

No it isnt mad. This is not the US we are talking with SSBNs for africa. It is quite conceivable for some demented person who is the leader of quite a large country, who gains a nuclear weapon, to convince himself that he can attack and take out all means of retalation in a quick block of coordinated strikes. And, whats the worst that could happen – you get virgins – yay.

Fortunately Ronald Reagan somehow managed to restrain himself from a senescent first strike at the Russkies. Apparently the old Kremlin crowd got quite keen a time or two. If the Indians, Pakistanis, Israelis, Chinese and North Koreans have resisted the urge so far we may have some cause for cautious optimism as the nuclear armed club grows, as is inevitable.

Firstly, you don’t actually have any evidence that it is the case. No documentation, no inside information. Your assertion is based purely on the timing of this round of violence.

I cited it all above: see my 2:57.

Both timings of violence with elections, plus numbers of attacks. The tell is they did it last time at Christmas in Cast Lead four years ago and they’re doing it again now for the January elections, and the fact per that table shows they’ve been doing it a lot, but who cares about that, because if you’re suggesting they did it four years ago and now they’re doing it four years later when rockets have been fired all throughout at the same rates, 2010, 2011, 2012. That’s the tell. But you’re saying this timing isn’t designed? I see.

As for the rest of your comment, I have no idea why you imagine the rights and wrongs of the Jabari killing has anything whatsoever to anything I’ve been saying so you’ll have to forgive me for in fact disregarding those points but I’m quite happy to answer any criticism of anything I have actually said, if you choose to deliver any.

Kea Hamas fired 7-800 rockets per year into Israel, 2010, 2011, 2012. It was only when the election came around, they did this, like they did exact same time four years ago. The rocket rate was consistent throughout, the timing was entirely Israel’s decision. Simple. As. That.

If I accept your figure, for rocket attacks, then I must accept the Israeli government has failed to protect its people. How do you feel about a proportionate and measured response from Israel, say about 800 Israeli rockets into Gaza?

The fact that Hamas has less capability, does not give them any moral high ground.

Reid
Your figures and timing on rockets/mortars fired by Hamas et al into Israel designed to back your internal Israeli politics as the main motivation for Operation Pillar of Fire allegation don’t quite gel with the actual figures.

Rocket fire into Israel accelarated through the 2000s but reach a crescendo that led to Operation Iron Lead. 2002 (35), 2003 (155), 2004 (281), 2005 (1255), 2006 (1777) then a big jump in 2007 (2807) and by the time Iron Lead commenced in late December 2008 the total for 2008 alone had peaked at 3716! When you look at the 2009 figure (858) most of that was concentrated in the early part of the year right after the cessation of Iron Lead and during the negotiation period. The remaining 10 months of 2009 the numbers dropped to only 300 or less than a 10th of what was being fired in the run up to Iron Lead. 2010 saw that quiet trend continuing (365) and this starting to climb again in 2011 to 680. Note that the Israeli absorbed rocket fire of that magnitude (680) for years without triggering a major Gaza intervention. BUT by mid Nov 2012 almost 2000 rockets have been fired with the monthly trend in 2012 (aside from 2 small spikes in March and June) being only 22 rockets per month until October it climbed to 171 and in November we’re at 1339 – a massive escalation! So you can say what you want about the Israeli elections but clearly Operation Pillar of Fire was in reaction to the sudden serious escalation in rocket attacks at the end of this year.
[Source is Wikipedia for all attacks each one is footnoted and verified].

If you look at the history of Israeli elections, few wars co-incide neatly with your theory partly because so many elections are triggered by the collapse of unstable multi party coalitions brought about by the Israeli political system which is an proportional system with no minimum threshold thus allowing many small parties representing extremist elements in Israeli society into the Knesset. Unnecessary, overreaching and unpopular wars result in defeat at the polls in Israel. Operation Pillar of Fire has bi partisan support so, echoing TimG Oz, its hard to see how Netanyahu gains votes at the expense of his likely rival Prime Ministerial opponent by launching Pillar of Fire. I’m not saying that the January elections have absolutely no bearing on this action but you are alleging that politics is pretty much the main reason for the IDF’s action. Israeli politics is far too complex and nuanced for such a simplistic representation.

I don’t doubt your analysis, but I shouldn’t rule out an electoral motive. If Hamas stepped up its rocket fire and Israeli didn’t respond; that would be bad news for the political leadership in Israel. Likud and Labour do not offer substantially different approaches in any event – I suspect that no one in the Israeli government would dare risk being labelled as moderate at this time.

mikenmild
What you are suggesting is that Hamas are the ones trying to influence the outcome of the Israeli elections since THEY are the ones controlling the timing of the massive escalation of rocket attacks. The date of the Israeli election in January 2013 was announced on 9 October BEFORE the escalation of the rocket attacks. Knowing the likely bi partisan response would be some kind of IDF incursion into the Gaza Strip, the timing seems way too coincidental. Any failure by any Israeli politician of any political hue to respond to such a high level of provocation would be tantamount to political suicide – something Hamas would well know. The size and scale of the escalation was pretty much GUARANTEED to provoke a response regardless of whether an Israeli election was impending or not. Now perhaps politics is shaping to some extent the precise contour of the military response but frankly the only new element in 2012 not present in the last massive wave of rocket attacks is the presence of the Iron Dome defence system which Hamas may have assumed their sheer volume of rockets would overwhelm. Whilst that has been true for the areas most proximate to Gaza within range of the smaller rockets of which Hamas has larger stockpiles, it is clear that Iron Dome has blocked all the larger nastier Iranian longer range missiles and the vast majorty of the shorter range missiles.

The truth remains: no (or minimal) rocket attacks from Hamas – no incursions into Gaza by Israel (except random surgical strikes on known terrorists on long held Israeli target lists – actions that go on regardless of rocket related provocations)

Business as usual then. No commitment to a peaceful solution from either side;ongoing sporadic violence with periodic outbreaks of more serious conflict. The Israeli election will be here soon – is it time to turn our attention back to whether or not to attack Iran?

Correct – until Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah renounce terror and recognize the right of Israel to exist, there will never be any lasting peace because Israel will not participate in the formation of a state on its doorstep some of whose principals dont believe it is legitimate. Israelis want peace for sure – but not at any price.

Neither side is prepared to pay the price necessary for peace,, so both choose war. No Palestinian movement will ever go as far as Arafat did in the early 90s towards compromise. That backdown destroyed him and his movement and that message is pretty clear to today’s Palestinian leaders.

If the threat of an attack on Iran is to end, the Iranians would have to verifably give up their nuclear programme – not likely to happen in my opinion. Obama’s re-election has probably increased the likelihood of an Israeli strike because the Mullahs see Obama as weaker and less likely to impose truly crippling sanctions than Romney and Netanyahu already believes the relationship between him and Obama has weakened to the point that the US would never sanction even tacitly any pre-emptive attack whereas Romney was more likely to what Reagan did in 1981 when the Israelis attacked and destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nascent nuclear weapons programme at Osirik – Reagan feigned US anger after the attack but tacitly approved of it before hand.

I doubt that there is any difference in the way the President Obama will approach Iran and the approach that would have been adopted by a putative-President Romney. We can’t deal in counterfactuals in any event.

mikenmild
Every Arab leader worth their stripes urged Arafat to accept Barak’s deal in 2000 – the Israelis asceded to 97% of his territorial demands (further than any Israeli leader had ever before offered) and agreed to make up the disputed 3% with other territory but it wasn’t enough. Arafat wanted a guaranteed right of return – a form of demographic slow suicide. He also didnt just walk away – he ordered a second bloody Intefada – it was THAT that pretty much destroyed him. As Abba Eban (the Israeli Ambassador to the UN in the 60’s) famously said “the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity”!

All I stated was the current political reality – Obama and Netanyahu dont get on. If Bibi is re-elected in January (not guaranteed), the bad blood between the two will continue and the side effect will be an increased likelihood of a unillateral Israeli strike